It was mentioned that the first DROS was already submitted, so there is nothing that can be done to avoid a second DROS. The DROS for a long gun asks how many firearms are to be transfered.

Also the 4473 has a new box in which it is asked how many firearms are to be transfered, which makes it harder to add additional firearms.

So, the answer is no.

On gun numbers. The DROS does ask for the number of firearms. The DOJ has told me by phone you can reduce that number, but you can't increase the number. I asked why the inconsistency and didn't get a good answer. I said I think it is because you just want more DROS money.

So I ignore the DOJ on that one and simply go by federal law. Guns can be added and subtracted at will until the dealer signs the 4473. That isn't until the end of the ten day wait.

So in my store, we can add or subtract long guns all you want until I sign the 4473.

However, there is absolutely no mixing of two different FFLs. That is clear.

__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

if you add a firearm after the start of the waiting period, then you are not doing the proper waiting period for that firearm based on when exactly it was sold, which is a violation of the law. I am not sure that the BATF would like that either.

Reducing firearms is acceptable since the person can decide to not get a firearm. Adding is a different story and has different issues.

it is also important to realize that this is a public forum and that it is possible that the CA DOJ and anti-gun people are actively reading this, so it could be used against you and/or FFLs in general. Saying that you are ignoring the DOJ and perhaps breaking the law in a public forum is not a good idea.

if you add a firearm after the start of the waiting period, then you are not doing the proper waiting period for that firearm based on when exactly it was sold, which is a violation of the law. I am not sure that the BATF would like that either.

Reducing firearms is acceptable since the person can decide to not get a firearm. Adding is a different story and has different issues.

it is also important to realize that this is a public forum and that it is possible that the CA DOJ and anti-gun people are actively reading this, so it could be used against you and/or FFLs in general. Saying that you are ignoring the DOJ and perhaps breaking the law in a public forum is not a good idea.

I'm not aware of any such law. As said, the number of firearms thing is DOJ made up junk. They can not provide any reason why you can not modify it after the fact and mostly its just a "we want more money thing".

By your logic if someone buys a CMMG lower "proper waiting period for that firearm based on when exactly it was sold" and comes back 10 days later and wants to change to a stag the FFL broke the law.

Guess if you wanted to be parionoid when DROSing everyone you will just say 10 to be sure. Until they show this is illegal FFL's will continue to add after the fact. Like Wes said, Until the FFL signs out the 4473 its not done and can be viewed as a work in progress.

Are you not aware of the law regarding the 10 day waiting period in CA? It is based on the purchase of said firearm, not the purchase of another firearm. Replacement is far different than adding an additional one.

If you don't like it, which I don't, then do something about it rather than just breaking the law. There are many stupid laws, not just with respect to firearms. Are you complaining to your representatives in order to try to get it fixed? You should be able to submit a DROS for a handgun and also have included long guns. Perhaps if enough FFLs push this issue it will be changed.

The DROS submission is quite broken, especially when it comes to charges for multiple handguns, but you can push them to get them to charge the correct amount. Been there, done that.

There is the ability to exchange a firearm for various reasons. Nice strawman, but it really does not apply in this case. For example, if you sold a firearm and it turned out to be defective, you can replace it with another one (different serial number, etc.).

Always saying "10" is also a bad idea since then you are giving false information to the CA DOJ, unless you always sell 9 junk guns, which then the receipt will need to match unless it is free (sales tax).

A couple of questions:

Are you an attorney?

Do you really want to claim that your reading of the law will stand up not only in court, but in the eyes of the CA DOJ & BATF?

Do you really want to play games and go through all that?

Do you really think that the CA DOJ does not read these forums?

If you are so sure of your "opinion", then call the CA DOJ and get it in writing. I would love a copy of that so that I could make changes like that legally. Otherwise, don't play fast and loose with the rules/laws and not expect to get burned. I am not willing to risk my business nor my freedom for such peanuts. Perhaps it will get you more customers in the short term, but what about the long term?

Are you not aware of the law regarding the 10 day waiting period in CA?

Yes, don't be silly.
They wait 10 days so where is the problem?
There is nothing in writing from the DOJ saying you can not add.
There are no laws broken otherwise the countless FFL's who do this would all be shut down.
If we listened to what the DOJ said OLL's would still not be sold here.
If you think you will get the to put anything in writing you are dreaming. They don't even put stuff in writing for DA's and Law enforcement agencies.
I could call them 5 time and get a different answer everytime.
I will keep doing what the law says I can.

No one is telling you to do something you don't feel comfortable with.

If you sell a firearm on Monday, where does it say in the law that you can add a firearm sold on Wednesday? If you sell a firearm two days later and "add" it to the first one, then the waiting period on the second one will only be 8 days, not 10. That is violating the law. How can you claim that there was the required 10 day waiting period if you "add" an additional firearm, yet keep the 10 day waiting period for the original firearm? Quite clearly, if you add a firearm on the 9th day and release it the next day, there was no 10 day waiting period on *that* specific firearm. Yes, it is stupid and yes, you should be able to do that, but the current laws just don't support that position.

As to the countless FFLs who do this would be shutdown, I suspect that if the CA DOJ gets wind of this, they might start inspecting with this in mind. All they need to do is to get a printout of the number claimed and the compare that with the 4473 and bound book. Then, those countless FFLs may get shutdown. This is not a justification, just like claiming that it is not fair for a cop to give you a speeding ticket because "everyone" else was speeding.

No laws are being broken because everyone is doing it? They have just not been caught yet, just like the other speeders. When you get caught for doing that, please try that excuse and let me know how it works for you.

The law says that when you sell a firearm you need to submit the DROS and the waiting period is based on that. The law is quite clear on that. There is nothing in the law which says that you can add, which would be required in this case.

Ok, you say "I will keep doing what the law says I can", so show me where it SAYS that you CAN do that. I have never seen any law which says that you can do that and I have seen the law say what the requirements are, which goes against what you are saying. So, please show me where the law says that you can do that.

As for the OLL, there has to be a basis for the claim. I have talked to the CA DOJ about OLL in order to confirm that it is legal and it is. So, I am not sure of what you are talking about there.

One thing that I don't think that you are considering is that when you are inspected they look at general things. It is possible and quite likely that they would not catch all mistakes or violations. But, if they happen to read in a public forum that you are doing something which is not legal, then they will inspect with that in mind. In this case, checking the receipts and other paperwork will show what is going on and that will cause a problem for you. Also, a sting operation would work well in this case.

It is clear that you are missing my point. First, you don't want to do anything which will make FFLs look bad. Second, you really do want to admit to violating the law in a public forum. You really need to have a solid basis for what you are doing and as far as I can tell, you have no basis in law for doing what you are doing and therefore you are risking a lot. There is NO way I am going to do what you suggest (it would not even save me any money, only my customer, but I get all the risk) and further, I would greatly prefer your not harming the pro-gun cause by making suggestions which you can not support by the law. It really does not matter whether the DROS entry asks for the count or not as that will most likely be only used only to convict you. What matters is when the firearm was actually sold and the submittion of the DROS and the waiting period.

The 4473 says that you can add firearms until the seller signs it, so for the BATF it should be fine.

CA laws says that you have to submit a DROS when selling a firearm (under certain condition, ignoring transfers to other FFLs, etc.). It also specifies a waiting period after the sale of a firearm. Adding an additional sale of a firearm at the last minute violates that. For it to be legal, you would need to see something in the CA law which allows for that. Look at the law yourself regarding the requirements in selling a firearm and see where you can justify adding a firearm at the last minute.

I asked the CA DOJ years ago about OLL and did not get the answer that you did. Perhaps I asked differently. It was mentioned that they might add additional firearms to the list, but that would have caused issues since then there would have to be a grace period for those that currently owned them to register them. As far as I could tell, then did intend to add more, but the law became an issue if they had done that.

If there was no law regarding the transfers, then it would be legal, but the law states what the requirements are in order to transfer a firearm, which is why it would be required to specifically allow adding firearms after the DROS was submitted. If you do what you say, then you are not following the law regarding the transfer of a firearm.

It *should* be as you say, but that is not what seems to be in the CA Penal Code.

You are correct in other matters where the law can only prohibit acts and does not makes acts legal.

If there was no law regarding the transfers, then it would be legal, but the law states what the requirements are in order to transfer a firearm, which is why it would be required to specifically allow adding firearms after the DROS was submitted. If you do what you say, then you are not following the law regarding the transfer of a firearm.

It *should* be as you say, but that is not what seems to be in the CA Penal Code.

You are correct in other matters where the law can only prohibit acts and does not makes acts legal.

kemasa,

I think you will find that here on CGN underground regulations are frowned upon. The DROS software is one implementation of regulations that isn't written to account for all that is not illegal. If the state says you must use their software but it doesn't allow you to do something that is not illegal then that is an underground regulation of sorts. For example, there is nothing illegal about adding long guns to a handgun sale but the DROS software doesn't allow for it. Poorly written software should not dictate what is or isn't legal; so many FFLs do it anyway because it really isn't illegal.

I agree with you in regards to the DROS software. It does not always do what is proper and legal, but that is a different issue. In the past, there were separate forms for handguns and longguns, so perhaps that is where some of the issues come from. Multiple handgun sales is a serious problem and typically I have to call to get it corrected, which is a waste of my time, but there is a point to be made, so I always call and push them.

It is possible to try to justify one handgun and multiple long guns on a single DROS. That is far more unclear since the sale occurs at the same time and there is really the need for only one background check. One issue is that you are selecting either a handgun purchase OR a long gun purchase and they don't allow for the option of selecting both and their has never been that option as far back as I know. Even in the days of paper forms (still have my set of forms), there were two different forms and if you sold a long gun and a handgun, then two forms had to be submitted. I am not sure if that is detailed in the law.

But, what you say has nothing to do with adding long guns days after the initial DROS submission. The Feds, as far as I am aware, don't care about the number of firearms or the type, it is just a background check. The DROS, unfortunately, does more than just that. The DROS basically registers handguns, but I understand that it illegal. This has been a longstanding issue, but I doubt that it will ever be corrected.

The CA DOJ said before that you can add firearms days after the initial sale?

Im familiar with that PC. It makes not mention of multiple purchases. It just says no firearm can be released until after 10 days of the application to purchase (read 4473) it makes no mention or DROS or any specific firearm. The 4473 says it can be modified until it is signed.

And yes the DOJ gave me the ok and the phone conversation went like this:
Me: Hi, I'm calling from ****. If I made and error and DROS 1 long gun when the gentleman really bought two and he is now here to pick up can I release it or do I have to submit a new DROS for the second rifle.
DOJ: You can release it there is no limit on multiple long gun purchases.
Me: Do I need to be concerned that the DROS form says one and the 4473 says two.
DOJ: No, you just need to make sure they forms have not been signed out and they don't take possession of the firearm or a new DROS will be needed. Handguns would need a separate DROS regardless.

Do I think I would get that same answer today.....maybe...depends on the person answering.

I understand some separate being overly cautious. Its fine. In this industry there is Legal, Safe, and Lawyer Safe. Of course Lawyer Safe would probably advise you to find something new. Playing safe is never a bad idea.

if you add a firearm after the start of the waiting period, then you are not doing the proper waiting period for that firearm based on when exactly it was sold, which is a violation of the law. I am not sure that the BATF would like that either.

Reducing firearms is acceptable since the person can decide to not get a firearm. Adding is a different story and has different issues.

it is also important to realize that this is a public forum and that it is possible that the CA DOJ and anti-gun people are actively reading this, so it could be used against you and/or FFLs in general. Saying that you are ignoring the DOJ and perhaps breaking the law in a public forum is not a good idea.

Cite a specific penal code section that prohibits this. If you can't then it isn't breaking the law. Thank you for the warning and hopefully you have some code to back up your statements and not just what you think the law says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

See:

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12070-12086

The CA DOJ said before that you can add firearms days after the initial sale?

Sorry, you paint with a broad brush. Again, post a specific reference that shows adding guns to a 4473 or even a DROS is illegal. The best I can tell the number of long guns DROSed is plain and simple bean counting. That is it.

__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

And yes the DOJ gave me the ok and the phone conversation went like this:
Me: Hi, I'm calling from ****. If I made and error and DROS 1 long gun when the gentleman really bought two and he is now here to pick up can I release it or do I have to submit a new DROS for the second rifle.
DOJ: You can release it there is no limit on multiple long gun purchases.
Me: Do I need to be concerned that the DROS form says one and the 4473 says two.
DOJ: No, you just need to make sure they forms have not been signed out and they don't take possession of the firearm or a new DROS will be needed. Handguns would need a separate DROS regardless.

Do I think I would get that same answer today.....maybe...depends on the person answering.

Actually, I think that you would get the same answer today, based on specifically what you said. This is far different than what was suggested by others. You stated that you made a mistake in selecting the number of long guns, but that ALL were purchased on the original date. That is big difference than the person buying another firearm just before the transfer is completed and adding that additional firearm to the original purchase.

Cite a specific penal code section that prohibits this. If you can't then it isn't breaking the law. Thank you for the warning and hopefully you have some code to back up your statements and not just what you think the law says.
Sorry, you paint with a broad brush. Again, post a specific reference that shows adding guns to a 4473 or even a DROS is illegal. The best I can tell the number of long guns DROSed is plain and simple bean counting. That is it.

Hmmm, if I don't take the time to go through the penal code and point out the specifics of how you are supposed to transfer a firearm, then it is not illegal? If that is how you want to deal with the law, then you are heading for a problem.

You are missing the point about the number used in the DROS. It is not bean counting. It can be used to show that you violated the law, especially with the comments that you have made in public. You can put any number in there and it really does not make any difference. As was stated by others, you can make a mistake and not put the correct number in there, but if you sell a firearm later and try to add it to a previous sale and DROS, then it can be used a evidence that you actually initially sold some number of firearms and then later added to it.

Do you happen to know the purpose of the drunk checkpoints? It is a scam really since the police have officers around the area to pull of those who violate the law in an attempt to avoid the checkpoint, which is why they often have cones very far back. In doing this, there is no issue as to whether the stop/search is legal as it does not actually involve the checkpoint.

Hmmm, if I don't take the time to go through the penal code and point out the specifics of how you are supposed to transfer a firearm, then it is not illegal? If that is how you want to deal with the law, then you are heading for a problem.

You are missing the point about the number used in the DROS. It is not bean counting. It can be used to show that you violated the law, especially with the comments that you have made in public. You can put any number in there and it really does not make any difference. As was stated by others, you can make a mistake and not put the correct number in there, but if you sell a firearm later and try to add it to a previous sale and DROS, then it can be used a evidence that you actually initially sold some number of firearms and then later added to it.

Do you happen to know the purpose of the drunk checkpoints? It is a scam really since the police have officers around the area to pull of those who violate the law in an attempt to avoid the checkpoint, which is why they often have cones very far back. In doing this, there is no issue as to whether the stop/search is legal as it does not actually involve the checkpoint.

You keep saying he is breaking the law (I guess I am too) but can't cite the specific law. If it exists, I too will stop adding long guns.

Hmmm, if I don't take the time to go through the penal code and point out the specifics of how you are supposed to transfer a firearm, then it is not illegal? If that is how you want to deal with the law, then you are heading for a problem.

You are missing the point about the number used in the DROS. It is not bean counting. It can be used to show that you violated the law, especially with the comments that you have made in public. You can put any number in there and it really does not make any difference. As was stated by others, you can make a mistake and not put the correct number in there, but if you sell a firearm later and try to add it to a previous sale and DROS, then it can be used a evidence that you actually initially sold some number of firearms and then later added to it.

Do you happen to know the purpose of the drunk checkpoints? It is a scam really since the police have officers around the area to pull of those who violate the law in an attempt to avoid the checkpoint, which is why they often have cones very far back. In doing this, there is no issue as to whether the stop/search is legal as it does not actually involve the checkpoint.

So in other words you think I am violating the law by adding guns to a DROS, but you can't show which penal code section I am violating. You do realize that you have no credible arguement here right? So trying to advise me that I am heading into a problem when you have shown no clear evidence that I am violating any laws is pretty much pointless. So you have no point in the first place for me to miss.

Throw in some info about checkpoints and boy you think you are on a roll.

So again, either show in the law where you cannot add additional guns to a DROS or understand that if it is not prohibited by the state, you are entitled to free will. I do not need the government's permission to do anything, unless it is specifically prohibited.

What you are doing is spreading FUD until you can prove otherwise.

__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

In other words, you don't want to look at the Penal Code and figure it out yourself and you want to keep violating the law until someone delivers the specific section on a silver platter and even then, I suspect that you will reject it. Your claims that of what I can or can not show is false.

Can you show me that what you are doing does not violate any of the Penal Code sections and actually follows all of the required Penal Code Sections? The answer to that is no, you can not, because it seems that you have not looked at the penal code and if you do, I suspect that you will view it as you want to in order to justify your position.

The Penal Code specifies exactly how you are to do a firearms transfer. That means that if you do not follow that procedure, then you are not following the law. 12077 specifies how firearms are to be transfered and lists what needs to be sent for a handgun and separately lists what needs to be sent for a non-handgun. It specifies what a transaction is. It specifies the information to be sent specifically, so if you were to do a handgun and a non-handgun at the same time, it would not follow the procedures required as the information submitted would only be what is required for one. It says what "shall be", which does not mean that you could send additional information and have it qualify. The law is a bit strange that way.

As for adding a firearm, 12077 (d) (4) states "One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns."

If you add a firearm, that is NOT a single sale, it is multiple sales unless it happens at the same time, that is a secondary sale.

Also, 12077 (d) (4) states what exactly a transaction is, which does NOT include handguns, which means that the sale at the same time of a handgun and a non-handgun are, in fact, considered separate transactions. If you try to group a handgun and non-handgun together, that would mean you are do following 12077. It also means that violates 12077 (d) (4) since you are not submitting the required transaction per 12077 (c) (1) and instead using a separate transaction per 12077 (b) (1).

In other words, you don't want to look at the Penal Code and figure it out yourself and you want to keep violating the law until someone delivers the specific section on a silver platter and even then, I suspect that you will reject it. Your claims that of what I can or can not show is false.

You came in here claiming that what some dealers were doing was illegal. It would make sense that you would need to be the one to provide the proof.

Quote:

Can you show me that what you are doing does not violate any of the Penal Code sections and actually follows all of the required Penal Code Sections? The answer to that is no, you can not, because it seems that you have not looked at the penal code and if you do, I suspect that you will view it as you want to in order to justify your position.

Well why not? You are. Laws are always open to interpration. Ask any lawyer.

Quote:

The Penal Code specifies exactly how you are to do a firearms transfer. That means that if you do not follow that procedure, then you are not following the law. 12077 specifies how firearms are to be transfered and lists what needs to be sent for a handgun and separately lists what needs to be sent for a non-handgun.

Yes it does and everything required for a firearm transfer other than a handgun is included in the requirements for a handgun transfer. (Note that recording the number of firearms that are not handguns is NOT a requirement).

Quote:

It specifies what a transaction is.

Yes it does. "a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns"

And a transfer of firearms is not completed until transferor signs and dates the 4473. Only then is it a done-deal. In CA there is a minimum 10-day waiting period, so the window for a single transfer in CA is at least 10-days.

Quote:

It specifies the information to be sent specifically, so if you were to do a handgun and a non-handgun at the same time, it would not follow the procedures required as the information submitted would only be what is required for one.

Again, everything required for a firearm transfer other than a handgun is inclusive in the requirements for a handgun transfer.

Quote:

It says what "shall be", which does not mean that you could send additional information and have it qualify. The law is a bit strange that way.

What additional required information needs to be sent? Remember number of long guns is NOT a requirement.

Quote:

As for adding a firearm, 12077 (d) (4) states "One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns."

Yes, "any number of firearms that are not handguns" means multiple handguns require multiple record of sale documents. Nothing in here to forbid any number of long guns and a single handgun from being a single transaction.

Quote:

If you add a firearm, that is NOT a single sale, it is multiple sales unless it happens at the same time, that is a secondary sale.

But it is a single transfer.

Quote:

Also, 12077 (d) (4) states what exactly a transaction is, which does NOT include handguns, which means that the sale at the same time of a handgun and a non-handgun are, in fact, considered separate transactions. If you try to group a handgun and non-handgun together, that would mean you are do following 12077. It also means that violates 12077 (d) (4) since you are not submitting the required transaction per 12077 (c) (1) and instead using a separate transaction per 12077 (b) (1).

Again, I'm not seeing that language as forbidding a single handgun and any number of long guns on a single transfer.

IF the intended purpose of these laws is to prevent otherwise prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms and to register handguns then it follows that:

A single Long Gun DROS provides the required background check for multiple long guns and the 10-day window provides for additional long guns to be added before the transfer is complete.

A single Handgun DROS provides the required registration for the handgun AND the required background check for multiple long guns. Again, the 10-day window provides for additional long guns to be added before the transfer is complete.

First off, it does not matter what some person on some forum does or does not
prove. Ultimately, each person is responsible for their own actions. If the CA
DOJ claims that it is in violation, then you had better have a drop dead case
proving that you are correct, not just something you did not happen to see. It seems to me that some of the responses to this really amount to an attack, such as the claim that I am spreading FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_urination_device or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD_(food) ? :-). It has not been proven that what I am saying is false and I have backed up my statements and my view does not conflict with the CA DOJ, whereas the attacker's view does conflict with the CA DOJ and they have not provided any proof that what they are saying is correct. The fact is that those who are suggesting to others that such things are legal will not be standing behind them should they get in trouble. I personally don't want to see FFLs lose their licenses.

Next, in the case of firearms transfers, there are laws regarding it and therefore when it specifies how the transfer is to be done, it tends to remove the concept of "if it does not say something" then you can do it. The law does not say that you can not paint over the forms nor that you can not store the forms on your property and bury them in some manner in which is makes it difficult for the records to be inspected as required. The law does not say that you can't make it difficult. However, as you say, when you look at the spirit of the law and how a judge would view that, you could have a serious problem. It is also not wise to tease a tiger, as has been shown. You also can not close your eyes and say that because you don't see anything, then you can do it.

This means that when you try to claim that it is legal to include a longgun with a handgun or add a longgun at a later time, which is contrary to what the CA DOJ says, then you need to provide proof that it is actually reasonable with respect to what the law states. For example, in the case of OLL, if it is not listed by name and it does not have the features, then it is not banned. It is not even semi-auto since you could produce a bolt or pump action upper for it. That would make the statement that OLL are not legal to be incorrect, as has been shown by the lack of action on the part of the CA DOJ to enforce the a-salt ban on OLL. You need to look at the laws, not what you think it should be.

Now, perhaps I have a warped sense of humor, but in the small view of things, I think that it would be a bit funny for a person to post that they are not following the law, that they are ignoring what the CA DOJ says in a public forum and have the state take action against them. Based on the nature of this forum, I suspect that law enforcement, including the CA DOJ, keep an eye on what is posted here. Especially, when you have people saying that they are doing what the CA DOJ says is not legal. It is also important to remember that your FFL requires that you also follow state and local laws. To make such statements is like standing in the middle of the target on a bombing range.

The problem that I have is when I look at the big picture. If said person could go to jail, fined and/or put out of business without any adverse effect on others, then it would be fine. Unfortunately, the fact is that the media will run a story stating that a firearms dealer was closed down due to illegally transfering firearms and/or not following the required waiting period, which makes all firearms dealers look questionable in the public eye and it also reflects poorly on firearms owners. Also, those in charge of enforcing the laws may make changes which will make it harder on all the other dealers. Imagine the inspection being changed so that ALL records have to be viewed and confirmed to ensure that a dealer does not do the action which is being described. They CA DOJ will be at your place for days. Why do you think that you have to spell out the number of firearms being transfered on the current 4473? No doubt it is because some FFLs were adding firearms after they signed it, which is illegal.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink. It says nothing about what happens if the horse drowns.

It is amazing how someone chooses to read things. As for adding a firearm, 12077 (d) (4) states "One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns." Playing with words and claiming that it is a single "transfer", does not make the single "transaction" and single "sale" to go away. This specifically states that the transaction can NOT include a handgun. That clearly prevents you from adding a longgun to a handgun transaction as it is TWO separate transactions, although you might consider it a single transfer. It also states that it is a single sale. The spirit of the law does not allow you to claim that a second independent sale is actually one sale. You can not select the bits and pieces that you want to ignore or warp into what you want it to be.

Based on this, how exactly can you claim that a single transaction can include a longgun AND a handgun???? Somehow I suspect you will still try to make that claim. I doubt that even the judge at your trial will convince you otherwise, sooner or later it will end up there, unless you plead guilty. Remember the jury will not be your FFL peers, but the random public, some of which are anti-gun.

Yes, if the law was reasonable, then you could do all of the things that you are suggesting and I agree that it the way it should be viewed, but that is not the way the law works (check out jury nullification and see how often that is mentioned to juries). In fact, there should not be any waiting period if you already own a firearm, especially if you own many firearms. The law SHOULD be what you say it should be, but the fact is that is NOT what is written. What is WRITTEN is what can be enforced.

The intended purpose of the law really does not matter. In the case of .50BMG ban, there is actually a problem with the law. I am sure that if you were to follow the letter of the law, you would not appreciate be charged by violating the spirit of the law.

You are claiming what the intended purpose of the laws, but what if the intended purpose was to harass firearms buyers, collect more money, etc., then your "spirit" of the law would completely fail as it would violated what was really intended.

Can you show me that what you are doing does not violate any of the Penal Code sections and actually follows all of the required Penal Code Sections? The answer to that is no, you can not, because it seems that you have not looked at the penal code and if you do, I suspect that you will view it as you want to in order to justify your position.

LOL. I just looked. The Penal Code makes no mention of any of that anywhere. So there you go. I looked and it doesn't exist.

Now it is your job to prove I am wrong. Man you are a debating genius!

So lets forget all of the previous posts and sum this up simply. Penal Code Section 12077(d)(4) states, "(4) One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns."

To sum up, each DROS can only contain a single sale of any number of firearms that are not handguns. However, a single sale is not definied nor is the time frame of that sale definied in the penal code. Thankfully, federal regulations state, "Additional firearms purchases by the same buyer may not be added to the form after the sller has signed and dated it. A buyer who wishes to purchase additonal firearms after the seller has signed and dated the form must complete a new ATF Form 4473. The seller must conduct a new NICS check."

So a single sale of any number of firearms is terminated when a seller signs the 4473. As a result, additional long guns can be added until the transaction is complete at the time of the seller signing the 4473.

A person could claim that the transaction is terminated when the DROS form is submitted and the final number is on the DROS software for number of long guns. However, there is no evidence in penal code or code of regulations that supports this claim. Additionally is the transaction complete when no response has been received from DROS on the eligibility of the purchaser to own firearms? Second, there is a 30 day limit to an open DROS. If the transaction were over at the time of DROS submittal, then there would be no ten day wait and no 30 day expiration of DROS. It logically and lawfully makes more sense that the transaction is terminated as the federal 4473 states, when the seller signs the document.

In fact, DROS software should simply allow a dealer to edit and change the number of long guns sold as long as the seller has not signed the 4473. As has been stated in other threads, the DOJ should not be allowed to create legislation or regulation based on software limitations.

Prove that is wrong.

Second, the language is confusing and states that a transaction are firearms that are not handguns. That clearly means that one firearm transaction per DROS cannot include handguns. Does that mean that you cannot DROS handguns? Or does it exempt handguns from the single transaction requirement? Does it prohibit you from adding any number of firearms to a hangun DROS?

I think the only thing that is clear is the penal code was poorly written in regards to handgun DROS being used as a long gun DROS. However, again, the 4473 is clear that a handgun, long gun, and other firearm can be included on the same 4473. If the DROS software simply had a section for handguns that said, "Additional long guns on this transaction" and had a number section there, would we be having this argument? Again, software limitations seem to rule this thread as the penal code does not prohibit it and the 4473 is actually quite clear on how to proceed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

Just keep doing what you are doing and when/if you get charged, lose your license, etc., then we can talk about who was right and who was wrong (assuming that you still have Internet access).

Why not call the CA DOJ and tell them directly that you are ignoring them and that you are going to keep doing the transfers that way until they can prove to you that they are right and you are wrong?

So how many audits do I need to go through and how many years of not being charged until you admit you are wrong? If the DOJ brings any of this up at an audit, I will fight it. And that is a big if as most of this is simply explained as "I accidently put one gun instead of two".

Again, most of this is so trivial no auditor gives a damn as long as you are trying to do your job. That is what some people don't understand about the DOJ. They are not a super-monster regulating beauracracy with all knowing and seeing powers and abilities. Most of this crap is so hard to prove that is why a dealer can do what they can do. It is also why the DOJ won't try and bust your balls over it.

__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

No, I am not taking bits and pieces. Point out where I am doing that. I am looking at the complete sections. Putting a handgun on a longgun transaction is not prevented by 12077d4. What prevents that is 12077c1. What 12077d4 prevents is adding a longgun to a handgun transaction. The penal code does not mention how many longguns can be added to a handgun transaction because a longgun transaction can NOT include a handgun, as stated, which makes it a separate transaction. You MUST report ALL transactions. If a longgun transaction can not include a handgun, then how exactly could you have one transaction which includes both? It does say that.

As to your claim of handguns and longguns, your comments don't really make sense. "Does that mean handguns can be mulitple transactions?" Yes, each handgun is a separate transaction, so that is multiple transactions. Did you mean to say can it be a single transaction? If so, the answer would be no, since you can not include all of the required information for each handgun.

12077 (d) (4) makes mention of a single sale. If you add an additional firearm,
do you go back and modify the original sales receipt, including the one that
you give the customer?

Please explain to me what makes a sale a different sale. It seems that under your view, once you have sold a customer something, it could all be considered the same single sale.

I think you are getting confused with what the BATF 4473 FirearmS Transaction is vs. what the CA firearm transaction is. In this case it does not matter what the Feds consider the end of the transaction to be. Apples and Oranges. Please show me proof that what the Feds considered the transaction to be is the same as what CA considers the transaction to be. I might consider a firearms transaction to include multiple handguns, since from my point of view it is a single sale, but CA considers each handgun sale to be a separate transaction and requires a separate DROS. It seems to me that under your view, you should be able sell a second handgun, perhaps not submitting a separate DROS, but in any case add that to the original 4473 and claim it to be one transaction since the Feds say that the transaction is not done until you sign it. That would present a problem with recording the waiting period on the DROS form, if you don't wait 10 days.

As to how long, it is the case where it can only be proven positively (when you are charged), not negatively because you are not caught. Tell you what, you call the CA DOJ and tell them what exactly you have been doing, give them the proof of what you are doing and if you are not told to stop it and/or charged, then I will admit that I am wrong. Care to try that? It should not be a problem if you are so confident in your position.

I have called the CA DOJ and have always received consistant answers. Perhaps because I ask specific questions and understand that each case can be different and the answer to one may not apply to a similar case (such as selling two or more longguns at one time and not correctly entering the number being different than selling another longgun later and trying to add it).

You did not prove anything and your claim of what I said is not correct. I said to prove that you could do what you are doing and follow the law. As I also said, I don't see anywhere that the law says that I can't paint the forms afterwards. Do you think that is legal and acceptable?

The penal code section does prove my position. You are trying to weasel word things to claim that a firearm sold on Monday and one sold on Friday can be a single sale. You also go on to try to use the BATF 4473 to try to make it somehow apply to the CA DROS in the same way. That just does not work as there are different rules and requirements.

Quite clearly you have not looked at the penal code section due to your comment "Does that mean that you cannot DROS handguns?".

Please go read the complete 12077 penal code section. You will find that penal code sections are divided up into parts. That means that 12077 (d) (4) applies to 12077 (d), not 12077 (c). If you had read the penal code section 12077, you would know that the part dealing with handgun transaction is 12077 (c), not 12077 (d) and you would not be making such a statement for you would realize how foolish it was. The language, when read in the complete penal code section, is not confusing, at least not in the way that you are claiming.

The DROS software is supposed to follow the law. Because the law says that the longgun transaction can not include a handgun, that prevents the DROS software from being changed so that it can do something which the law does not allow. Yes, the law is stupid and you should be able to DROS one handgun and any number of longguns, but due to the restriction of what a longgun transaction is, that can not be done at this point in time.

Again, the 4473 does NOT apply to CA Law.

As you know, the audit do not really cover everything. It is fairly quick and if they don't happen to notice this issue, then it will not be discovered until they have reason to investigate, such as posting on a public forum as to what you are doing. I suspect that you will need only go through one more audit to get this resolved.

As to a CA transaction, a DROS firearm transaction is completed after having the DROS submitted, waiting 10 days and not receiving any response to not complete the transaction AND the buyer comes in and completes the transaction by signing all the forms. It is NOT a single step.

No, I am not taking bits and pieces. Point out where I am doing that. I am looking at the complete sections. Putting a handgun on a longgun transaction is not prevented by 12077d4. What prevents that is 12077c1. What 12077d4 prevents is adding a longgun to a handgun transaction. The penal code does not mention how many longguns can be added to a handgun transaction because a longgun transaction can NOT include a handgun, as stated, which makes it a separate transaction. You MUST report ALL transactions. If a longgun transaction can not include a handgun, then how exactly could you have one transaction which includes both? It does say that.

Sorry, I didn't follow any of that. The main reason a long gun transaction cannot include a handgun is because handguns are registered by make, model number, and serial number. Additionally, 12077(d)(4) says you cannot do any number of handguns.

However, it does not say a handgun DROS cannot include long guns. Period. It says a transaction is a "single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns." So if handguns are not considered a transaction, what in the hell are they? 12077(d)(4) says only one transaction per DROS. If handguns are not a transaction, then you are not limited to putting one per DROS. This section is not consistent or logical. We know we are limited to one handgun every 30 days from other penal code sections, but this section makes no sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

As to your claim of handguns and longguns, your comments don't really make sense. "Does that mean handguns can be mulitple transactions?" Yes, each handgun is a separate transaction, so that is multiple transactions. Did you mean to say can it be a single transaction? If so, the answer would be no, since you can not include all of the required information for each handgun.

Why is each handgun a separte transaciton? Because of 12077(d)(4)? No. 12077(d)(4) only deals with firearms that are not handguns. Handguns are limited in other PC sections and the one every 30 days sections. And as you state, you must register handguns by make, model, and serial number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

12077 (d) (4) makes mention of a single sale. If you add an additional firearm,
do you go back and modify the original sales receipt, including the one that
you give the customer?

I do not make sales receipts until the merchandise is sold. I make sales orders when a guy starts the ten day wait. The transaction is not finished until he picks up. Until he takes possession of the merchandise, they can still make payments and add other accessories. Only when they leave the building with their merchandise do they actually buy the product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

Please explain to me what makes a sale a different sale. It seems that under your view, once you have sold a customer something, it could all be considered the same single sale.

Until the customer leaves the building with the merchandise, it is the same sale. So you can pay start a long gun DROS on two long guns and only pay one off. When you come back in to pick up, you pay the other one off and walk out with both. However, this process is pointless as the penal code nor the 4473 makes any mention of how to run my books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

I think you are getting confused with what the BATF 4473 FirearmS Transaction is vs. what the CA firearm transaction is. In this case it does not matter what the Feds consider the end of the transaction to be. Apples and Oranges. Please show me proof that what the Feds considered the transaction to be is the same as what CA considers the transaction to be. I might consider a firearms transaction to include multiple handguns, since from my point of view it is a single sale, but CA considers each handgun sale to be a separate transaction and requires a separate DROS. It seems to me that under your view, you should be able sell a second handgun, perhaps not submitting a separate DROS, but in any case add that to the original 4473 and claim it to be one transaction since the Feds say that the transaction is not done until you sign it. That would present a problem with recording the waiting period on the DROS form, if you don't wait 10 days.

Again, you are really limiting yourself here. If you want to make headway in this argument, stop making comments like the one in bold. The absense of any language by the State of California on when a transaction begins and ends means that federal law takes precedence. So the fact that the state makes no mention of it, means I must comply with federal mandates. Now, you have to go search through all of the penal code to prove I am wrong. You are now stuck trying to defend a position that requires you to prove me wrong.

You are no different than a prosecutor. You are claiming I am violating the law, so show me which law I am violating? If you cannot, then you cannot convict me. It really is that simple.

My defense is that the 4473 clearly states until I sign the 4473, additional firearms can be added. The PC 12077(d)(4) prohibits me from putting more than one transaction per DROS. That customer's transaction was not completed until I signed the DROS 12 days later. I am following federal law. You must show specifically that Calfiornia law prohibits this. Until you do, you have no case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

As to how long, it is the case where it can only be proven positively (when you are charged), not negatively because you are not caught. Tell you what, you call the CA DOJ and tell them what exactly you have been doing, give them the proof of what you are doing and if you are not told to stop it and/or charged, then I will admit that I am wrong. Care to try that? It should not be a problem if you are so confident in your position.

Is this a legitimate challenge? Should a business owner be expected to call and challenge the DOJ on what they think is lawful conduct in a confrontational manner in order to prove themselves correct? Second, if the DOJ is incorrectly reading the law just as they did in the case of OLLs and underground regulations, is it logical to bring attention to yourself and invite malicious prosecution? Should you expect a dealer to front the legal costs of proving themselves correct outside of a normal audit? Is it a logical or smart business decision to go looking for trouble?

Try making a fair challenge for proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

You did not prove anything and your claim of what I said is not correct. I said to prove that you could do what you are doing and follow the law. As I also said, I don't see anywhere that the law says that I can't paint the forms afterwards. Do you think that is legal and acceptable?

I guess you don't know the penal code that well, not even the section right before the one we are talking about.

Quote:

PC 12077(d)(1) Dealers shall use ink to complete each document.
(2) The dealer or salesperson making a sale shall ensure that all information is provided legibly. The dealer and salespersons shall be informed that incomplete or illegible information will delay sales.

Painting the 4473 would make it illegible. Second the 4473 clearly states that you must retain the records for 20 years. If you were to paint over the record, you would be destroying it and thus violating the law, unless you are waiting until after the 20 years. You might want to use a better example next time as it just proves you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

The penal code section does prove my position. You are trying to weasel word things to claim that a firearm sold on Monday and one sold on Friday can be a single sale. You also go on to try to use the BATF 4473 to try to make it somehow apply to the CA DROS in the same way. That just does not work as there are different rules and requirements.

A firearm sold on Monday and a firearm sold on Friday are a single sale of any number of firearms if sold to the same person and sold before the seller signs the 4473. PC 12077(d)(4) does not define how long a transaction lasts, but Form 4473 does and that is until the seller signs the 4473.

You think that a transaction ends when the day is over. You have yet to show anywhere in the penal code that supports your position and that same position also conflicts with the clear instructions in the 4473.

__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

Quite clearly you have not looked at the penal code section due to your comment "Does that mean that you cannot DROS handguns?".

Please go read the complete 12077 penal code section. You will find that penal code sections are divided up into parts. That means that 12077 (d) (4) applies to 12077 (d), not 12077 (c). If you had read the penal code section 12077, you would know that the part dealing with handgun transaction is 12077 (c), not 12077 (d) and you would not be making such a statement for you would realize how foolish it was. The language, when read in the complete penal code section, is not confusing, at least not in the way that you are claiming.

LOL! Sorry, but you just made a complete fool of yourself. The handgun information is section (b).

Quote:

(b)(1) For handguns, information contained in the register or record of electronic transfer...

(c) is for firearms other than handguns

Quote:

c)(1) For firearms other than handguns, information contained in the register or record of electronic transfer...

and (d) applies to both sections (b) and (c) as it states

Quote:

(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:

It probably is not a good idea to try and "educate" me on how the penal code reads when you just completely screwed it up. Wow. Let's read what you said one more time just for laughs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

If you had read the penal code section 12077, you would know that the part dealing with handgun transaction is 12077 (c), not 12077 (d) and you would not be making such a statement for you would realize how foolish it was.

I honestly feel bad for you right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

The DROS software is supposed to follow the law. Because the law says that the longgun transaction can not include a handgun, that prevents the DROS software from being changed so that it can do something which the law does not allow. Yes, the law is stupid and you should be able to DROS one handgun and any number of longguns, but due to the restriction of what a longgun transaction is, that can not be done at this point in time.

You are correct, it prohibits doing handguns on long guns. Still nothing prohibits long guns on handguns. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

Again, the 4473 does NOT apply to CA Law.

Really? Can CA law violate federal law? Can I pick and choose which ones I want to follow? Of course not. I must follow both. The federal law clearly defines when a transaction ends. State law does not. Done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

As you know, the audit do not really cover everything. It is fairly quick and if they don't happen to notice this issue, then it will not be discovered until they have reason to investigate, such as posting on a public forum as to what you are doing. I suspect that you will need only go through one more audit to get this resolved.

We will see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemasa

As to a CA transaction, a DROS firearm transaction is completed after having the DROS submitted, waiting 10 days and not receiving any response to not complete the transaction AND the buyer comes in and completes the transaction by signing all the forms. It is NOT a single step.

Wow! We agree. When the seller signs the 4473, the transaction is complete. So if you want to add more guns in between, it is still the same transaction. I knew you would come around.

__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

Yes, I know that you did not follow any of that since you are not reading and understanding what is written. Based on this, it seems quite easy to say that people should not listen to what you are saying.

12077 makes sense if you bothered to read it. You keep making the same mistake over and over again. Even with my telling you what mistake you are making, you keep doing it. I am not sure of how to get you to read and understand. I suspect it is like hitting you head against the wall, it feels so good when you stop. Then again, it is also fun to see how deep of a hole a person can dig themselves.

Ok, let's try this real simple. 12077 is made up of parts. Parts like your front door, your window, etc. Each part relates to something different. 12077(d) applies to longgun purchases. 12077(c) applies to handgun purchases. That is why 12077(d) does not involve handguns, but more specifically it prevents handguns from being included because of 12077 (d) (4).

Handguns transactions: 12077(c)

Non-handguns transactions: 12077(d)

Get it?

Handgun ARE considered a transaction, a separate transaction, covered, in part, by 12077 (c).

This is yet another example of the problem: "If you want to make headway in this argument, stop making comments like the one in bold." You do not understand that what the Feds consider to be a transaction is different, not the same, etc. as what CA considers it to be with respect to firearms. The reason I said what I did is because you seem to think that something on the 4473 applies to CA in how things are viewed. It doesn't.

I have already showed you what you are violating, 12077. You don't want to listen, read or anything else. You may say that your single sale is something, but that does not mean that CA agrees with that. Just like the difference between the Feds and CA. You go and tell CA that you can use the Fed's definition of what a transaction is and see how far it gets you.

Please show me where the 4473 talks about the DROS and requirements of the DROS submission. There is a section for recording the information of the background check, but not the specifics of the DROS. Also show me where the 4473 says that you can add an additional handgun in CA. The simple fact is that it doesn't.

A business owner should be able to read and understand the laws in which they are controlled. You don't get that 12077(d) applies to non-handguns and that 12077(c) applies to handguns, so in this case it is clear that the force of the law needs to be brought down on you in order for you to understand this. I strongly suggest that you contact an attorney to go over this before it is too late for you.

Yes, it is a legitimate challenge. Prove me wrong. Prove that the CA DOJ will not tell you that you are wrong and/or take action against you. I would love to do what you are doing, if only it was shown to be legal. You can do this and make a name for yourself.

Painting the forms would just make it difficult to read. It all depends on what you paint it with. Ok, the law says that you must use ink and that it must be legible. Does that mean that I can use ink which is only legible when viewed with infrared or UV? Would that be legal?

If you want to claim that a firearm sold on Monday and a firearm sold on Friday are a single sale, then you are going to have some explaining to do. Most reasonable people would not consider that to be a single sale, even if you don't pick everything up.

Let me ask you this. I come in and buy a rifle, a box of ammo and a gear bag and pay the full price of everything. Must I leave the ammo and the gear bag until I pick up the rifle? Do I need to take everything at once? You said that "Until the customer leaves the building with the merchandise, it is the same sale". So what is it if the customer leaves with part of the merchandise? If the customer has to leave with everything, then could I buy a rifle and a gear bag and not ever take the gear bag so that I could keep buying rifles as single sale and never have to do another longgun DROS?

Again, you try to put words in my mouth. Where did I ever sale that the transaction ends when the day is over. That is clearly false and I never said that. There is a big difference between transactions and sales.

Ok, so I made a mistake regarding the section, but at least I can read the
section. I had written down some of the section numbers and did not go back to
confirm it. Look at the comments that you have made and the simple mistake that
I made is nothing.

Selling another firearm is another transaction. Again, see what a transaction is defined in the law in CA.

Ok, so I made a mistake regarding the section, but at least I can read the
section. I had written down some of the section numbers and did not go back to
confirm it. Look at the comments that you have made and the simple mistake that
I made is nothing.

Selling another firearm is another transaction. Again, see what a transaction is defined in the law in CA.

Sorry your mistake is critical to this discussion. (b) applies to handguns, (c) applies to firearms other than handguns, and (d) applies to both. Your whole argument is wrecked. Not to mention you called me a fool and implied I was ignorant for not understanding the difference when it was actually you that are still wrong on it. That is pretty critical to your credibility on understanding this discussion.

It is you who doesn't get it. It is true, you can only do one transaction per DROS. However, a transaction is defined as a single sale of any number of firearms other than handguns. You can do any number of long guns on a single transaction. The CA PC does not define when that transaction ends. Federal 4473 does as when the seller signs the 4473. Done.

There is nothing in the PC that states you cannot use a handgun background check for a long gun background check. It says you cannot use a long gun check for a handgun, but it simply doesn't go the other way.

We could ask for a DOJ field reps interpretation on this, but they are not lawyers or judges. Just another brick in the wall.

__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

(4) One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns.

This means that you can not report more than one firearm transaction on a single DROS.

What is a firearm transaction? Well, the second sentence makes it clear it is a single transaction for non-handguns if it is a single sale, loan or transfer for any number of non-handguns. For handguns, each firearm is a transaction.

So, each handgun is a separate firearm transaction. Any number of non-handguns are a separate transaction. Only one firearm transaction may be reported per DROS. That means if you have a handgun and a longgun, that is two separate firearm transactions and so it must be reported separately with separate DROS submissions.

That takes care of the longgun on the handgun DROS. The only way you can add additional non-handguns to an existing DROS is to try to claim it is the same sale.